• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How the Pentagon is Preparing for a Tank War With Russia

Reactive armour...that has been around for decades.

And 'cross domain fire'. :roll: A new term for another old concept.


And Russia is zero thread to America (outside of nuclear). She is not the old Soviet Union...her economy and military are a fraction of what they were.
Right now America could take out Russia's tank force with no multipliers just on a tank-to-tank basis.
America fields the still excellent M1 Abrams whereas Russia essentially has tanks that are upgraded T-64's and T-72's (from the sixties). Hell, they are having to field upgraded T-72's because they are so short of dough.
Yeah, the Armata tank looks interesting, but they cannot afford many of those for a decade. Russia is broke right now. And other then putting the entire crew in the hull (an excellent idea, IMO), the tank seems conventional otherwise.

Heck, according to the IISS, Great Britain alone spends more on their military then Russia does. While G.B., France and Germany combined spend 3 times as much as Russia. NATO (even without America) could EASILY handle Russia (conventionally).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Russia is NO THREAD to the West (conventionally)...none.

Imo, the emotional basis of the OP article (Russia attacking the West) is neocon nonsense.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom